Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Are there any known examples of that in nature? To me that sounds even more controversial than Ketchum's hypothesis. Of two species sharing the same parasites? Yes, in fact there are. Certain intestinal parasites have an affinity for both pigs and human beings, for example. Dr Meldrum mentions this in his book on pp 268 & 269 in a case involving suspected sas feces. Parasites will attach to any host organism whose biochemistry is sufficiently close to their requirements for them to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm not sure, to be honest. I WILL point out that there is an alternate explanation of how "human" nuDNA could be found in a non-human/Homo critter. Bear with me for a moment. The alternate explanation has to do with the concept of convergent evolution, that is, that species of entirely different origins are similar physically and genetically because they developed to fill similar ecological niches. A simple example, using the trait of bipedalism. Consider that, a long time ago, there was a split between ape and Homo. We went and developed bipedal traits, which we passed on in our genes, and apes retained arboreal traits and passed them on. Now, at some point after the ape/Homo split, another split occurred in apes, where another group of apes developed bipedalism BUT retained more "ape" features (diet, appearance, etc) than Homo did. Now we have TWO groups of bipeds, Homo, and the new biped. Form follows function, so if both have the function of bipedalism, then it would necessarily follow that their DNA would take the same form to encode for bipedalism. That would make it appear that the bipedal ape had at least one set of "human"/Homo genes, when in fact it was not from Homo. Nature is very creative, duplicating our genes for phenotypical purpose isn't needed. You would expect human DNA anyway since our mtDNA already made it into the species at one point. As far as speciation post LCA, yes it has happened several times. The big question is how far ours and theirs go back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I can't be sure. But I might be getting excited about all of this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Well sure that's what you and I would prefer, but from her perspective, why not release the whole thing as one pretty package with a bow on it, making yourself the world's foremost expert on Bigfoot? You only get one chance at that sort of thing. Perhaps, but see your other question below. Would it be possible for Ketchum's paper to prove the existence without conclusively proving whether it's a human or an ape? In other words, could where it fits still be open for interpretation with everyone agreeing that it DOES exist? That would have been the route I would expect someone to take. Document that it is first, then go back and study what it is. That way, if you run into trouble on Step 2, you've still accomplished Step 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 That doesn't make any sense to me. In the past, when I've been privy to the collection and submission of samples for DNA analysis, we also sent along buccal swabs of everyone who handled it specifically to screen out for our own contamination. How can she have tested for that without screens? She did test all the sample collectors according the recent interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) That would have been the route I would expect someone to take. Document that it is first, then go back and study what it is. That way, if you run into trouble on Step 2, you've still accomplished Step 1. I honestly think there is enough evidence to do this now, i.e., apply for the provisional recognition of a species yet unclassified. To me, the evidence accumulated so far - which falls short of proof mainly because the mainstream won't even look at it - is a mountain compared to DNA strings accompanied by no specimen. I am honestly surprised that Bindernagel - who considers this a scientific discovery that hasn't been generally acknowledged yet - hasn't done this, although he has been pushing for years for the inclusion of this topic in mainstream conferences. Edited November 28, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Nature is very creative, duplicating our genes for phenotypical purpose isn't needed. It is the most efficient and logical method to ensure phenotypical conformity. Same features built from the same "blueprint". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 People keep forgetting the bodies don't belong to Dr.Ketchum. Everyone's real beef is with Justin. He could have cut all this short by producing them and not taking everyone on his convoluted path of interviews and polygraph saga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I honestly think there is enough evidence to do this now, i.e., apply for the provisional recognition of a species yet unclassified. To me, the evidence accumulated so far - which falls short of proof mainly because the mainstream won't even look at it - is a mountain compared to DNA strings accompanied by no specimen. I am honestly surprised that Bindernagel - who considers this a scientific discovery that hasn't been generally acknowledged yet - hasn't done this, although he has been pushing for years for the inclusion of this topic in mainstream conferences. Quantity is not always a sufficient substitute for quality when the difference is quality is very great. DNA is conclusive evidence (beyond reasonable doubt), if just short of dispositive (removing ALL doubt) which is what a type specimen would be. The lesser forms of evidence, however probative they may be, will always be subject to doubt. People keep forgetting the bodies don't belong to Dr.Ketchum. Everyone's real beef is with Justin. He could have cut all this short by producing them and not taking everyone on his convoluted path of interviews and polygraph saga. Which leads me to believe that he in fact does not have bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 That would have been the route I would expect someone to take. Document that it is first, then go back and study what it is. That way, if you run into trouble on Step 2, you've still accomplished Step 1. I'm with you there, it's the difference between taking a shot at the end zone and dumping the ball off for 2 yards. I guess she must have felt she had sufficient evidence to go for it all, we'll have to wait and see? And so what do you think about that question I asked, could that be a result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I hope the journal is a reputable one. it is, and one used by many reputable people. . Edited November 28, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ketchum interview from what looks like yesterday: http://www.click2houston.com/news/Does-Bigfoot-have-human-DNA/-/1735978/17568802/-/5pkab/-/index.html Somethings not right there. She looks tired and unhappy. And surely she is coming out with so much information it is going to interfere with publication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I'm with you there, it's the difference between taking a shot at the end zone and dumping the ball off for 2 yards. I guess she must have felt she had sufficient evidence to go for it all, we'll have to wait and see? And so what do you think about that question I asked, could that be a result? Yeah, that reminds me of how the Jets managed to lose a playoff game by punting on 4th and short with time left on the clock that they could have used to go for the TD to win. *ETA Yes, I agree that it should be possible to agree that they exist w/o agreeing what they are. That was kind'a the point I was trying to make all along. Edited November 28, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 That doesn't make any sense to me. In the past, when I've been privy to the collection and submission of samples for DNA analysis, we also sent along buccal swabs of everyone who handled it specifically to screen out for our own contamination. How can she have tested for that without screens? When I sent my sample to her, she asked me to send a swab. Later she told me that none of my DNA was found on the hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Yeah, that reminds me of how the Jets managed to lose a playoff game by punting on 4th and short with time left on the clock that they could have used to go for the TD to win. *ETA Yes, I agree that it should be possible to agree that they exist w/o agreeing what they are. That was kind'a the point I was trying to make all along. The Jets losing a playoff game? You'll have to be more specific (Dolphins fan- no room to talk, but I can't in good conscience pass up a chance to s-talk the Jets) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts